|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence of Demons (and Angels) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've answered this many times already. No, I don't reject geology, I reject the Geo Timeframe. No, I don't reject biology, I reject evolutionism. I understand these terms are just about synonymous in most people's minds so that they have a terrible time separating them but that's what I'm trying to do, separate them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Arkansas Banana Boy Inactive Member |
The geo column concept is intertwined with modern geology. You have shown youself unwilling or unable to conceptualize the column(remember the Great Debate?), so how can your uninformed opinion mean anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The geo column concept is intertwined with modern geology. Yes, "intertwined" is what it is, the theory relating to the science as a parasitic vine to a tree. It has no intrinsic relation to geology, simply habitual association. It would be a VERY interesting test for scientists to practice describing their observations in objective terms leaving out the geotimetable and evolutionism. It would be difficult but since the theory is inessential, not impossible. It's simply a bad habit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It would be a VERY interesting test for scientists to practice describing their observations in objective terms leaving out the geotimetable and evolutionism. It's precisely because scientists describe those observations objectively that geologic time and evolution are included.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That's not true. In fact, only a small minority of believers consider the Bible to be factually true in all things. The vast majority of Christians do not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It sounds like quibbling. You accept the science, but you reject the conclusions from the science. I bet you reject conclusions from chemistry, from physics, and from astronomy too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Schraf writes: The only thing that matters in the facts is the question of who Jesus Christ is. In fact, only a small minority of believers consider the Bible to be factually true in all things. The vast majority of Christians do not.If a belief says that He is no longer alive and is a mere man, that belief is not a Christian belief. At best, it is a Pseudophilosophical belief. We are dealing with the source of wisdom, again. Christian belief would by and large agree that at a macro level at least, life was created. Intelligence was created. Any intelligent Christian is unconcerned so much with evolution on earth. We are concerned with the philosophy of the origin of life in general. The origin of conscious intelligence. It concerns me when conscious intelligence itself uses logic and reasoning to define its own existence and purpose while bypassing the obvious source, which is a Creator. As to whether the Bible is factually true, only THIS truth...the identity of the Creator...found in the idea of His Son...really matters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, that's your thought, but Faith and Buzsaw and many others disagree with you.
quote: Oh, I think it could be a real philosophical belief, but perhaps not a Christian belief, at least the way you (and many others) define "Christian Belief". However, who am I (or you) to tell someone that they aren't a "real Christian" if they consider themselves one, even if they think that Jesus was a mere man?
quote: I personally know several devout Christians who do not believe this.
quote: ...except those Christian Biologists who delight in God's creation.
quote: That may have been caused by God, but it more likely to have come about naturally, too. It's just chemical reactions, really.
quote: Oh, you mean our great big brains? Evolution.
quote: What Creator?
quote: Well, tell that to Faith. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-23-2005 12:56 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It sounds like quibbling. You accept the science, but you reject the conclusions from the science. I bet you reject conclusions from chemistry, from physics, and from astronomy too. Yes, apparently it sounds like quibbling, but the point is that these theories are NOT "conclusions" from the sciences. The sciences do NOT support evolutionism or the Geo Time Table. These two theories are IMPOSED on the sciences and the actual evidence is forced to fit into them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Schraf writes: By the same token, who are you to tell a guy who believes that the earth is 6000 years old that they are not a real scientist? However, who am I (or you) to tell someone that they aren't a "real Christian" if they consider themselves one, even if they think that Jesus was a mere man? By your definition of science, right? And so I judge Christians based on an orthodox definition of Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes, all of those hundreds of thousands of scientists are ALL MORONS, like I said before. Or incredible LIARS. It really has to be one or the other. They are so INCREDIBLY STUPID and OBTUSE to base any of their proposed hypothese upon the validity and reliability of the GTT or the ToE. I mean, SO WHAT if all of their testing of these theories have confirmed them as two of the most solidly supported ideas in all of science? All scientists are CLEARLY so WHOLLY DEFICIENT in the smarts department that not a single one of them has figured out what you have been able to confirmwithout your having any training or expertise in any scientific field whatsoever! Truly, Faith, if I were you I would start contacting all of the top Geologists, Nuclear Physicists, Evolutionary Biologists, and Paleontologists in the world and tell them how they HAVEN'T actually been doing any science at all, but have been dumbly accepting something that YOU have EASILY figured out just can't be true. Make sure to show them your math, they will be impressed with that. They really need to know how wrong they have been about everything for their entire careers. You would be doing science SUCH a huge service, really. Wait, wait!!!!! I've just had a very DISTURBING, DARK thought. What if there is a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY within the worldwide scientific community to LIE TO THE WORLD about the validity of the ToE and the GTT?????????????? How can you possibly deal with SUCH EVIL as that?
quote: Maybe you could do us a favor and explain how radioactive decay rates are "imposed" upon Geology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Not at all. Beliefs have nothing to do with being a scientist. Qualifying as a scientist has to do with the methods you use.
quote: ...and I can probably find lots of people who do not fit your definition and still call themselves Christian. Why is your definition better than theirs? Are you saying that there is an objective standard that all Christians agree upon? And I can find lots of Christians who disagree with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I must say, I am disappointed. You weren't able to address any of my points at all. That should tell you something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The sciences do NOT support evolutionism or the Geo Time Table. Which is a kind of funny thing to assert, given that nobody has ever been able to show that this is the case. Not even you, as it turned out.
These two theories are IMPOSED on the sciences and the actual evidence is forced to fit into them. Since the evidence predates the theories, I find that rather hard to believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Arkansas Banana Boy Inactive Member |
More apt is that its the trunk of the tree. The acceptance of the geo column for almost 200 years by science puts the onus on you and others to dislodge it. You belittle the concept w/o understanding it. You claim the world to be undecipherable while much good evidence exists that deciphers many things.
It's about time that you make some rational arguments supported by physical evidence about creation theory. To differentiate this theory from evolution you need to understand the rationale of the geo timetable even if you don't believe it. Freshman geological concepts of deposition and tectonic movement aren't that hard. I think that you can understand the concepts (and perhaps do having been exposed to some). I also think that you find yourself unable to do so because understanding them is too close to lending credence to them and your religious preconceptions won't allow it. Saying that you don't understand so its not understandable (when so many others do) is not smart. The bad habit here is that you fail to demonstrate how science got off the track so long ago in regards to the age question. In the past whenever you settle on a subject (geo column, Grand Canyon geology, etc), you don't stick with it and bounce to another subject when the going gets tough. You seem much more competent discussing prophets of the Bible where your background is knowledgable and relevant. My apologies to the Admins as this post adds to the topic drift from Angels and demons. I await another thread where Faith tackles any one particular scientific subject with relevant information. ABB
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024